Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Tax

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 4th, 2018, 10:41 am

One of the things that you might find provokes some hot debate is the amount of money spent on social security and welfare, as shown in the article you cited. There are/have been a lot of posters in this forum who have made the Libertarian-style argument for very small government with no welfare. That subject has had a good run in the past.

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 4th, 2018, 10:42 am

Yeah, perhaps it's no accident that the first four letters of analyse spells "anal"? :D

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 57
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Tax

Post by mr533473 » July 4th, 2018, 11:21 am

Steve3007 wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 10:41 am
One of the things that you might find provokes some hot debate is the amount of money spent on social security and welfare, as shown in the article you cited. There are/have been a lot of posters in this forum who have made the Libertarian-style argument for very small government with no welfare. That subject has had a good run in the past.
That's what really blew me away looking at the article, I had no idea so much went to 'Social security and welfare'. My instant impression was that if I was allocating how my tax money was spent the ratios would be very different across the board.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3140
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Tax

Post by LuckyR » July 4th, 2018, 12:56 pm

mr533473 wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 3:01 am
LuckyR wrote: You are mixing discretionary and mandated spending items. The percentage of total spending that can be changed is shrinking every cycle.
You will have to accept the second place prize for successfully answering nothing of which was asked as ThomasHobbes beat you to the punch.

This is a hypothetical scenario where you get to allocate whatever you pay in tax among these groups by way of percentage, I have the data for how Australia spent the money in 2015-16 (these are the categories it's broken down into) and want to compare it to what people's individual decisions would be to see the difference. I'm not sure that anything said in your comment would keep you from being able to participate in the hypothetical scenario.

If you feel like one category ought not to be there, put zero, if you feel something is missing then put it in the 'other' category and specify.. if you feel like you want to do something entirely different, create your own thread so as not to derail this one (not that it's got any traction just yet).
A couple of things:

If Australian allocations is going to be a benchmark, that would have been nice to know up front since things like defence, for example are going to vary widely depending on the particular nation's presence on the world stage

Secondly since this is the philosophy forum, not the macroeconomics forum, allocating percentages without information on current allocations is a fool's errand

Lastly my point that in real life, legislators (let alone the rabble) don't have the discretion to change spending priorities like the uninformed suppose they do, is a legit issue to address
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 4th, 2018, 4:35 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 9:40 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:Government spending is not paid for by taxation.
Government spending is paid with invented money.
What do you mean by the term "invented money"? How does this type of money differ from the money with which I am more familiar?

Since the first sentence in the above quotation is clearly and obviously false, if taken at face value, you must mean something different from what you are literally saying. My employer pays me £36000 per year. That's £3000 per month. About £700 of that is taken from me at source, using the PAYE system, as income tax, national insurance and pension contributions. About £2300 goes into my bank account each month. I take that money out and exchange it for goods and services. The income tax goes to the treasury. Some of it then goes from there to the salaries of such people as teachers. They also spend it on goods and services.

Is any of what I have said here false? If so, which part(s)?
You tax is not 'taken from you'. Think about the process. Tax is an amount never paid to you, and never received by you - so it is not "Taken away"
When your employer "pays tax" the receipt (on your behalf) it is simply deleted from a computer screen in a bank.
When the government spends, they create money on a computer screen in a similar way.
It is a fiction that tax balances spending. It does not have to, but the government use this as a rule of thumb to satisfy an ideological position. They do not have to wait for you to "pay out", because PAYE was never money in the first place.

You might think this distinction is silly, even if true (which it is). But this difference is very important since the source of ALL money is government debt, the government is in no position to tax UNLESS it spends it in the first place.

Government spending enables tax, not the other way round.

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 57
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Tax

Post by mr533473 » July 4th, 2018, 10:59 pm

LuckyR wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 12:56 pm
A couple of things:

If Australian allocations is going to be a benchmark, that would have been nice to know up front since things like defence, for example are going to vary widely depending on the particular nation's presence on the world stage

Secondly since this is the philosophy forum, not the macroeconomics forum, allocating percentages without information on current allocations is a fool's errand

Lastly my point that in real life, legislators (let alone the rabble) don't have the discretion to change spending priorities like the uninformed suppose they do, is a legit issue to address
Explaining anything that would influence your decision is something I wanted to avoid. Obviously things (like defense) are going to vary that's why I asked what country you live in.

If you read the other posts you would have seen me note "I should have known better than to post this in a philosophy forum".

Wow, next you can go tell J.K. Rowling about how in real life, broomsticks are used to sweep the floor.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3140
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Tax

Post by LuckyR » July 5th, 2018, 2:36 am

mr533473 wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 10:59 pm
LuckyR wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 12:56 pm
A couple of things:

If Australian allocations is going to be a benchmark, that would have been nice to know up front since things like defence, for example are going to vary widely depending on the particular nation's presence on the world stage

Secondly since this is the philosophy forum, not the macroeconomics forum, allocating percentages without information on current allocations is a fool's errand

Lastly my point that in real life, legislators (let alone the rabble) don't have the discretion to change spending priorities like the uninformed suppose they do, is a legit issue to address
Explaining anything that would influence your decision is something I wanted to avoid. Obviously things (like defense) are going to vary that's why I asked what country you live in.

If you read the other posts you would have seen me note "I should have known better than to post this in a philosophy forum".

Wow, next you can go tell J.K. Rowling about how in real life, broomsticks are used to sweep the floor.
You're being too hard on yourself in my opinion. I think that exploring what folks think are the best allocations of public revenue are a very legit philosophical topic. My comment was that if for example I feel that foreign aid is a high priority and give it a 30% share (assuming that 25% is average and 15% is low), then I needlessly look like an idiot since current spending is <1%.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
mr533473
Posts: 57
Joined: July 1st, 2018, 8:12 am

Re: Tax

Post by mr533473 » July 5th, 2018, 2:49 am

LuckyR wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 2:36 am
You're being too hard on yourself in my opinion. I think that exploring what folks think are the best allocations of public revenue are a very legit philosophical topic. My comment was that if for example I feel that foreign aid is a high priority and give it a 30% share (assuming that 25% is average and 15% is low), then I needlessly look like an idiot since current spending is <1%.
Why would you look like an idiot in differing from the current spending amounts? Unless someone holds the current spending allocations as the ideal, a different opinion is not idiotic (even is the difference is 29%) Granted, no individual is capable of taking into consideration all the necessary information to make as informed a decision but I'm after a collection of informed decisions that are made individually. I didn't want for someone to reconcile their opinion with the norm. If you thought to give 30% to foreign aid, that's what I was after, not for you to think 30%, see that the actual is less than 1% and tell me you opt for 5%

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 5th, 2018, 3:11 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:You tax is not 'taken from you'. Think about the process. Tax is an amount never paid to you, and never received by you - so it is not "Taken away" When your employer "pays tax"
The above statements are false. Using PAYE it is deducted before I receive any money. When I have been self-employed it has been paid by me after I received money and after I filled in a tax return. Tax is quite clearly and obviously deducted from my income.
the receipt (on your behalf) it is simply deleted from a computer screen in a bank.
Money in the form of fiat currencies is not a quantity of physical substance, like gold. So, unlike gold and other physical matter, it can be created and destroyed. This is clear to anyone who has gathered any knowledge of basic economics. I'm still waiting hear from you why, in your view, that makes some money "invented money". What do you mean by that term? Are you making a distinction between fiat currencies and currencies that are tied to physical commodities like gold?
When the government spends, they create money on a computer screen in a similar way.
This is false. Governments do indeed "print money", such as in the quantitative easing programmes introduced in response to the 2007/8 financial crisis and in many other circumstances. Governments issue and buy bonds. But they don't create money every time they spend it. The creation of new money obviously always creates the risk of inflation. Your apparent claim that all funding of public services does not come from raising taxes but by printing new money is obviously absurd.
It is a fiction that tax balances spending. It does not have to, but the government use this as a rule of thumb to satisfy an ideological position. They do not have to wait for you to "pay out", because PAYE was never money in the first place.
If the money I pay in taxes, either through PAYE or by writing a cheque to the Inland Revenue after I have filled in my tax return every January, is "not money", as you've claimed, then give me an example of something that is money.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 5th, 2018, 4:58 am

Steve3007 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 3:11 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:You tax is not 'taken from you'. Think about the process. Tax is an amount never paid to you, and never received by you - so it is not "Taken away" When your employer "pays tax"
The above statements are false. Using PAYE it is deducted before I receive any money. When I have been self-employed it has been paid
FFS you are not even reading what I said!!
Thick as a plank.

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 5th, 2018, 5:02 am

FFS you are not even reading what I said!!
Thick as a plank.
I note that when you don't have an answer, either to me the orginator of this topic or anyone else, you simply hurl an insult. Your talk of money being "created on computer screens" seems to me to betray a lack of knowledge of basic economics. Please feel free to prove me wrong, or prove me right with more content-free insults.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 5th, 2018, 5:15 am

Steve3007 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 5:02 am
FFS you are not even reading what I said!!
Thick as a plank.
I note that when you don't have an answer, either to me the orginator of this topic or anyone else, you simply hurl an insult. Your talk of money being "created on computer screens" seems to me to betray a lack of knowledge of basic economics. Please feel free to prove me wrong, or prove me right with more content-free insults.
Sentence 1 you say I am wrong then agree with what I said. Well **** duh! The rest of what you say it BS.

There is no direct relationship between tax and spending. We do not live in the Middle ages where hard currency had to be physically collected by people on carts.
But even then the sovereign body was able to stamp out more coin from base metal, regardless of taxation.

Banks create money on a screen for lending when that is "paid back" the bank makes it disappear from the account. The bank "makes money" because the lender pays more back than they lent.

If you do not think money is created on computer screens, please let me know how it is made!

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 5th, 2018, 5:16 am

Your last paragraph is particularly annoying.

"If the money I pay in taxes, either through PAYE or by writing a cheque to the Inland Revenue after I have filled in my tax return every January, is "not money", as you've claimed, then give me an example of something that is money."

I never said it was 'not money' idiot! I am just telling what, in fact, money is.

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 5th, 2018, 5:17 am

Do you understand the difference between fiat money and commodity money?

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 5th, 2018, 5:18 am

idiot! I
Goodbye.

Post Reply